Las Vegas Review Journal v. Judge Jessica Peterson

This case involves a sexual abuse case against Nathan Chasing Horse (an actor who was in the movie Dances With Wolves) in Las Vegas.  The case is somewhat high profile, so the judge in the case made an unusual decision to issue an order telling the press how they could report on the trial.   The judge described court access as a “privilege” rather than a First Amendment protected right.  (source)

The order had many constitutional problems, but the most glaring one is that the  the District Court invented a requirement that if any member of the media wants to cover a trial, it must have an “approved media request in the case file.”   The court then issued an ultimatum to a reporter that the reporter could not remain in the courtroom unless he promised to keep certain information out of his article. 

A court order that the press must ask permission and be approved before even sitting in the courtroom to cover a trial sounds like a story some crazy person just made up.  But it isn’t made up.  It is right here.  

The Las Vegas Review Journal filed for an emergency intervention from the Nevada Supreme Court, and Attorney Marc Randazza was hired by four activist organizations to represent their points of view on the case.   The Nevada Press Association, the ACLU of Nevada, the First Amendment Lawyers’ Association (of which Randazza is a past president), and the Center for American Liberty all joined together to sponsor an amicus brief to the Nevada Supreme Court.  Their position is that the case is much larger than the Review Journal’s own interests.  If this case meets with the wrong result, it will destroy the freedom of the press in Nevada.  

The “Decorum Order” is a grave insult to the First Amendment.  Just look at it: “All members of the media wishing to cover proceedings in the Eighth Judicial District Court must have an approved media request in the case file.” III.PA.0387.  This Order purports to require preapproval before someone can cover a trial.  Meanwhile, approval was already granted on December 15, 1791.1  Judge Peterson has no power to revoke that approval. (Brief at 6) 

However, the licensing of the press is not the only issue.  The other issue is that even those members of the media who were graced with the Court’s blessing were required to allow the Court to tell them what they could report on and what they could not.  

Once the press managed to squeeze through the door, it walked into a hellscape adorned with a Constitutionally obscene horror – a prior restraint.  The District Court interprets its order as requiring that the judge gets editorial control over their reporting, or they must exit the courtroom.  This sounds less like real life and more like a hypothetical in a First Amendment course by a kind-hearted law professor who wants all of their students to get a perfect grade on the first quiz so that their confidence is soaring as they enter the second week of the class.   (Brief at 10) 

Court proceedings are open to the public. The First Amendment right of the press to attend and report on criminal trials is sacrosanct.  It cannot be overcome by whim nor can a Court dim its blazing bright light. We do not license the press, and we do not let any branch of government act as editor or censor.   

UPDATE:  In a shockingly fast ruling, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an emergency order ordering Judge Peterson to obey the First Amendment.  (Order) 

The Order seems like it was issued on an expedited basis, and it does state that the Nevada Supreme Court will be issuing a full opinion in due time.  But given the grave First Amendment violation here, they got out a fast order to right the wrong.